Obama doesn’t "get" America, but neither does the media

Peter Kirsanow thinks that Barack Obama somehow doesn’t "get" America and that his flip-flopping on the mosque at Ground Zero is emblematic of that.

He launches into a litany of examples of things and situations which support this claim. Notice who he holds complicit in all of this.

As Dorothy Rabinowitz has noted, Obama’s alienation from the citizenry is just beginning to be more broadly revealed, but has been on display since the 2008 campaign. The media either failed to report it or chastised anyone who dared notice. When some remarked about Obama’s refusal to do something as simple as wear a flag lapel pin, they were pronounced unsophisticated and jingoistic. Obama’s casual stance during the playing of the “Star Spangled Banner” was declared a triviality. When Reverend Wright was caught shouting ” G–damn America!” those who wondered whether Obama’s 20 years in Wright’s pews might suggest ideological concurrence were dismissed as alarmist. When some expressed concern that Obama might agree with his wife that America is a “downright mean country” and that perhaps he, too, for the first time in his adult life, was proud of his country, they were told to grow up.

Then Obama’s association with Bill Ayers emerged and the mainstream media closed ranks and refused, as long as they could, to even report it. And when Obama expressed unalloyed contempt for Midwesterners who “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment,” a phalanx formed to assure the public of his pure intentions.

There were other instances throughout the campaign and first months in office suggesting that for Obama, multiculturalism trumps national unity and moral relativism supersedes cultural confidence. His serial apologies for America, embrace of America-hating Hugo Chávez, and supplication to foreign thugs are consistent with a “blame America first” mentality that may be unremarkable for a political science professor but is toxic for the leader of the greatest nation in history.

By the way, you have to love the last line – proof of which we here at QandO are treated too almost daily in the comment section.

But to the point – the media was absolutely complicit in hiding, not covering or spinning the stories noted. If Obama had an agenda – and he did – so did the media. Totally unqualified for the job, Obama still got their support because he looked good, he sounded great, he was the dream “diversity” pick and wasn’t a Republican. And sticking with what they believed to be their arrogant right as journalists to decide what was or wasn’t news, they refused to do what was necessary to qualify the candidate.

In fact, they did nothing, really, to vet the man. As Kirsanow notes, they actually did all they could to hide these facts and their implications and to chastise those who thought they were important (and they were important).

Someone once said that in a political campaign having the media on your side is worth 5 to 10 points on election day. Never before, in my lifetime, have I seen that more true than in 2008. Hopefully, that day is coming to an end with this past election used as an example of what you are likely to get when the media doesn’t do their job. And for the media, this is a perfect example of why your profession now ranks down there with used car salesmen and Congressmen – and frankly, I’d trust a used car salesman well before I’d trust most in the journalism profession.

That said, I agree with Kirsanow’s thesis. I don’t think Barack Obama gets America, understands its exceptionalism or is particularly proud of his country. In fact, Obama, as indicated in his Berlin speech, claims he’s a “citizen of the world”. While that’s fine, again, in the faculty lounge at any cow college in the land, it’s not exactly something that indicates an understanding of one’s country’s place or role in the world or the job of president.

We elect a president to represent us, not the world. We want someone who understands the country, it’s founding principles and its exceptional role. We want someone who is proud to be an American, because that means they have an appreciation and a love of country that should guide them in their governance. Obama displays none of these traits. In fact, as noted, he seems almost apologetic about the country and his job when on the world stage.

When 2013 rolls around, it will be time to unload this “mistake” elected through media hype and false promises. And I only hope that America will have learned a valuable but incredibly expensive lesson in the time being. Politics isn’t theater and treating it like a beauty contest gets you presidents like this one. And – believe only half of what you see from journalists and none of what you read. They pitched any shred of credibility they had in the dust bin in 2008, and there’s no reason to believe they’ve taken it out, dusted it off and are now wearing it again – if ever they were before.

75 Responses to Obama doesn’t "get" America, but neither does the media

Oh, Obama gets America.
He understands this country, and the idea of American exceptionalism.

He just hates it is all. Look at all of his condescending remarks (“bitter clingers”) to his apology tour, bowing to every world leader, etc etc. Even the way he treats his “Presidency” – it’s basically the same way a detatched Royal does it, constant parties and vacations (and golf, lots and lots of golf!) punctuated by some speeches and proclimations. Rule by fiat (all the czars he appointed) and rule by proxy (leaving the crafting of his agenda to Pelosi and Reid)

He’ll probably get a 2nd term simply because he’ll still pull in 98% of the black vote, but I believe his harmful agenda gets stopped this November.

With young A-A facing a 40%+ unemployment rate, even the A-A voting bloc that Obama HAD is beginning to wake up.
I don’t recall who the first commentator was to term Obama the first “post-American” President, but that is a very apt description. I think he truly DOES see himself as transcendent. Of course he is…transcendently narcissistic and pathological.
I have to agree also with shark regarding his attitude toward his office. One of the first photos that struck me out of his Oval Office was with him, jacket-less, with his feet on that historic desk. This was an EXTREMELY symbolic photo, and one he allowed out of the WH.
He is not simply out of touch with America; he’s out of touch with reality in many ways. He is the most ignorant man ever to hold that office, but that never stops his imposing his rule on us in myriad ways. That ignorance and that rule will damage America and our interests in ways he cannot BEGIN to understand…not that he cares, really.
His resignation would be a very good idea. His narcissism and Shellie will never allow that.

There are districts where I’m afraid that would be true.
However, I think across the nation, the race blocs are far weaker…and getting weaker every day. Unemployment, disenchantment, and rampant corruption will kind of do that.

I remember Obama saying in response to a question about whether he believed in American exceptionalism something along the lines of “I believe in American exceptionalism the same way that a Greek believes in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, he does not believe that America is exceptional. None of this should be surprising to anyone who actually LISTENED to what he said and did in the past. Everyone in the media was so bamboozled by his charisma and what they thought he stood for that they didn’t bother to do their job.

News: Man bites dog.
Not News: Dog bites man.
News: Senator McCain doesn’t know how many houses he owns.
Not News: Senator Obama shares the opinions and prejudices of the dominant media culture.
See how that works?

He thinks like me. Besides, he has steel. Your way of thinking is obsolete and is being pushed aside.

I suspect he will be reelected and will be a great president.

*chuckle* He’s so much more qualified than Palin, who is corrupt because a random leftist says she got free kitchen redecorations.

Besides, you guys are inbred, mindless, and sterile. But if you insult me, it means I’ve won the argument.

Anyway, it’s all Reagan’s and Bush’s fault. This isn’t Obama’s fault because he inherited all of it. As proof of how bad it was, his trillion dollar stimulus failed to reverse the problem.

Besides, he passed Obamacare. Healthcare is a moral right. However, it’s not a natural right, which doesn’t exist. Rights are just constructed by carbon based forms of life, preferably wise leftists.

Obama has had to take some strong actions, because markets don’t adjust themselves, there’s no reason to believe they do. Yes, wise leftists can allocate resources much better than the private sector.

Of course, you don’t give credit to Obama because he’s going to cut spending. He’ll get around to it. Trust me.

Plus, Obama has succeeded in Iraq. Good thing, since Bush made Iraq the biggest foreign policy disaster in history. Plus, Sadr won over Maliki, and the violence there increased. Until Obama became president, of course, and everything got better.

There, I think I’ve covered just about everything. And I’ve been right about all of it, multiple truths into account. Though I don’t buy post-modernism. Except when I defend it as widely accepted. Besides, you guys are the post-modernists because you cherry pick data on climate change. You remind me of Goebbels.

Isn’t it great that I can be a pragmatic moderate and still believe all the things above?

Sorry, but I have no time to make up original parody today, so I am merely repeating the almost-exact words of Scott Erb, as posted in various threads over the last few years. Yes, for new readers, he said all of this. I didn’t make any of these phrases up. – Ott

You’re correct. Sorry. “Wise leftist” was just habit. He usually calls himself a pragmatic moderate, as I mentioned, though he’s about as moderate as Bernie Sanders.

Oh, and I forgot to mention how serving in a war makes a third of soldiers mentally unstable. Or how you can’t be pro-Israel without being pro-Palestinian. Doc is right – the parody stuff isn’t hard to create based on someone who can’t approach a keyboard without typing something really, really stupid. – Ott

The “left-libertarian” silliness is an example of the stolen concept fallacy.
It’s a bit like the communist countries putting “Democratic” in the official country name. They knew that there would be a certain percentage of intellectually myopics, otherwise known as “useful idiots” who couldn’t think themselves past a rote dictionary definition.
This is one of the reasons Martin McPhillips dubbed the guy a disingenuous fraud. He pretends to be for smaller, decentralized government, but always, always, always, when the chips are down, his money is on Big Central Government.

I give credence to the notion that there are such things as actual-factual “left libertarians”. I just know that Erp ain’t one. He’s your garden variety Collectivist, impure and simple. Emphasis on simple.

I give credence to the notion that there are such things as actual-factual “left libertarians”.

You’re not thinking this through, then. You cannot reconcile egalitarian collectivist notions with principles of individual liberty. If my life is my own and your life is your own, and people leave us to live our lives on our own terms, as long as we’re not bothering others, then you and I can engage in free market exchanges. As soon as someone else comes along to decide whether our commerce is acceptable by measuring our relative power or jealously complaining that they weren’t as “lucky” as we were, they’re interfering in something that doesn’t involve them, and thus cannot be “libertarian” by any rational definition.
Here’s some of the mush that passes for thought among the “socialist libertarians“:

Libertarian socialism is opposed to all coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the coercive social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor.

So, if you want to go sell your labor for compensation, the “libertarian socialist” opposes your free choice to do so (get that? He decides for you), declaring (despite your own personal evaluation and all facts to the contrary) that this mutual, consensual exchange of values between you and another party is “coercive.”
These stupid arguments are caked with the mud of false equivocations and stolen concepts, but I’ve found that the best rinse to get to the heart of what the “leftist” is really trying to argue is to ask: “Who decides?” Sure, you’ll get plenty of Ambiguous Collective Fallacy explanations tossed at you, but once you dispense with those, it’s really the “wise leftists” who are supposed to make the decisions for everyone else. (Ott’s satire works so well because it’s so close to reality.)
Review Erb’s writing for the past decade or so and you’ll find plenty of nonsense like this. He is desperate for others to believe that, contrary to all evidence, he has “libertarian” values in common with them. (I was the one promoting the “vegetarian” diet with steaks as an analogue for the “socialist libertarian”.)
Just in case anyone around here ever got the notion that Scott can ever be “shown the light” by enough persuasive arguments, see how he has moved exactly zero millimeters in a decades’ time.

collectivism and individual liberty are compatible if the collective is wholly voluntary (both entry and exit).
There are many examples of long lived voluntary collectives. They are small and filled with people bound by strong affection, duty, and/or faith. Think monastery or the Shakers.

McQ – If Obama had an agenda – and he did – so did the media. Totally unqualified for the job, Obama still got their support because he looked good, he sounded great, he was the dream “diversity” pick and wasn’t a Republican.

I suggest a worse problem: THEY AGREE WITH HIM. If The Dear Golfer doesn’t like our country very much (I think that this is true), then I’d say that he is in company with most lefties.

Why is a subject for debate, but I think that Ace hits the nail on the head: lefties like to think of themselves as “elite”, just plain smarter and better people than the rest of us. So, they reflexively take positions contrary to those commonly held in Flyover Country. The hoipoloi are patriotic? Well, then it must be chic to be a “citizen of the world”. The rubes like their guns, religion, NASCAR? Then it must be de rigeur for the REAL people to reject and belittle those things. The goobers have this belief in American exceptionalism, individuality, and hard work? Intelligent people know that there’s nothing special about America (hey, Greeks like Greece!), individuality is a code word for greed, and hard work is only good if it’s for the benefit of others.

McQ – I only hope that America will have learned a valuable but incredibly expensive lesson in the time being. Politics isn’t theater and treating it like a beauty contest gets you presidents like this one.

Don’t hold your breath. Even if Americans overnight became highly discerning people who spend at least as much time researching candidates as they do keeping up with American Idol or their Farmville farms, we usually have a pretty sorry pool of people to choose from. When people like The Dear Golfer, Yosemite Sam, Jean-Francois, Algore, Huckleberry, et al are our choices, “none of the above” starts to sound like the best option!

His serial apologies for America, embrace of America-hating Hugo Chávez, and supplication to foreign thugs are consistent with a “blame America first” mentality that may be unremarkable for a political science professor but is toxic for the leader of the greatest nation in history.

The bigger problem here is that Mr. Obama is a product of the current manifestation of what now passes for a liberal arts college education.
The reason the “elites” identify with him so well is that they were told the same thing in college.
This is what came from the likes of Bill Ayers and his ilk as he worked so hard within the education establishment.

But there is a darker, much more portentous trend we see in THE ONE; he has a clear preference for totalitarian thugs…worldwide…and he is not ashamed to act on it. Freedom movements, democratic allies and the rule of law ANYWHERE seem to be inimical to the man. Just look at where he falls any time those two choices…thugocracy v. freedom and law…come up.

chuckle. mccain is the dustin johnson of politics. he had the media in his back pocket. and then he decided he had to massage the nuthouse right. bad move, maverick.

reminds me of that old snl skit where jon lovitz, playing mike dukakis, turns to the camera and says “i can’t believe i’m losing to this guy”. of course that guy was way more qualified than the duke, more qualified than anyone since rmn in fact, so it doesn’t fit at all. but pedro likes the imagery all the same.

now, can anyone ‘splain how jimmy carter is the numero uno mas dangerous ‘merican of all time? where’s that marsten kook, this is a job for someone really out there.

No Pedro, McCain never had the media in his back pocket. Never, ever. The media loves to pick a Republican who is most like a Democrat and then build up that person and develop a very positive narrative. However, when it comes to an actual election against an actual Democrat, the media always, always finds a way to undermine their previous support for the Republican and cast their allegiance with the Democrat. Basically, the media is trying to pick the Republican.

i guess they picked the right guy then. of course i don’t believe the media is a monolithic conspiracy. and if they were the way the republicans pick their candidate didn’t give them much time to organize, their primary race was over in a flash. i think they just like to be stroked, and once upon a time mccain was good at that. it would’ve been interesting to see the younger mccain, the sane one who never would give the alaskan ditz the time of day, go up against someone who was almost as good at the game as he was, not sure who they would’ve gotten behind, but he cracked up before we got the chance.

Strawman alert. Most of us don’t think there’s a monolithic conspiracy either; I certainly don’t. I just think that a very large majority of journalists lean quite far to the left in their own political orientation, and are therefore likely to give the benefit of the doubt to fellow leftists while nailing their ideological opponents to the wall whenever they get a chance. They pick and choose what to cover, mostly on an individual basis, based on a general worldview they want to communicate.

The campaign of 2008 is almost a canonical example. From major media (NYT, WP, CNN, CBS, NBC, et. al) there was little interest in exploring Obama’s Chicago-tainted background, clear leftist philosophy, or likely collectivist policies. Instead, the media preferred to go through Sarah Palin’s trash cans digging up dirt on someone they instinctively disliked.

I will say that Journolist makes the conspiracy angle a defensible position, though I think it was just a bunch of overgrown adolescents trying to show how cool they are to each other. But still, they were coordinating a message, and many worked for major mainstream outlets. So while I think the conspiracy angle is oversimplified, it’s not without some support.

Whereas claiming the media is objective and being fair to both sides is obvious balderdash. That’s obvious even to some liberals, such as “five to ten points” Evan Thomas.

The MSM (with the FOX exception, and a few others) is in the tank for the Dems. This is obvious.

UCLA even had a study that measured media bias, and objectively showed the left wing bias in the media.

No doubt the media does conspire in some cases, but the root of the problem is that they all share the same twisted worldview.

As far as McCain goes, he lacked the leadership creds for the job as well. He did have some military leadership experience, and he also showed some level executive skill in pushing the Surge (he pushed the idea and convinced Bush), so he’s way better with respect to leadership than most other Senators and empty suit Obama, but he still falls short.

I always said that McCain was a “wandering Republican” because he really hasn’t thought out where he stands. The media then helps him to fill in the blanks. Scott Brown looks this way more often than I like.

you don’t really think that’s why they stopped loving him, do you? the guy changed, dramatically. he went from heavily courting the press, lots of personal one-on-ones, to going out of his way to antagonize them. once it started there was no stopping it. maybe it was easier when he was a lovable loser, posing no serious threat, but we’ll never know because the guy totally lost his marbles very early in that last race.

I didn’t follow the McCain / press love affair/break up in 2008. However, he strikes me as thin skinned, and he probably was surprised when he started getting bad press and reacted poorly.
I always expected McCain to fall out of favor once he went up against a Democrat in a presidential election.

“Totally unqualified for the job,”
Are you suggesting that he’s a) under 35 years of age, b) not a natural-born citizen, c) not resident in the US for 14 years, or d) some combination of those three things?

When George Washington came to Congress Hall in Philadelphia in March 1797, many of the attending diplomats were under the belief that by day’s end George would be dead. They had never seen the peaceful transfer of power.
Maybe they were right.

Sort of like it’s within the legal rights of someone to build a mosque 2 football fields from Ground Zero (2 football fields is so much easier to visualize than the usual “close’ or 600 feet comments).
It’s just in really poor taste.

I could also qualify to be President under the requirements outline above, and would quite possibly, no, probably, do a better job than jugears, but, honestly, I know my limits, I’m not qualified for the job.

He’s not qualified, plain and simple. Looking good and reading from a teleprompter are not real qualifications, but frankly that’s about all the man has….oh…..and…..that which put him where he is….an ego about the size of Texas.

Yeah, pedro… It’s a city. People live there. Commerce is committed. Mosques are built. We kinda object to an Islamist Arch d’Triumph being built 600′ away while they’re still recovering the remains of the dead.
I bet the water-front at Pearl Harbor wasn’t pristine, either. Nobody would have CONSIDERED building a Shinto shine a couple blocks from where the Arizona’s hulk lay…DURING WWII.
What a puke.

ah uh – ya know Pedro, I’d rather see 500 brothels go up on that spot rather than a temple to the half baked god of the crescent moon. Pimps and ho’s didn’t fly planes into the World Trade Center and kill 3000+ people.

And I’m not even religious, but rather than give the sand swarming bastards the satisfaction of thinking they pulled another fast one on us, using our tolerance against us, I’d rather it as I described above.

See how tolerant I am? But I admit, it is their right to build it, and I honestly would defend their right to do it. I just think it’s just in extremely poor taste, classless, and plain rude, and if they were sincere they’d GET that a lot of us feel that way and out of deference to our sensibilities they’d simply find another place to build it. How hard would that be? How magic is that spot to them? I guarantee you they could find Americans to buy the property (especially now, they’d probably even make a profit!). We’re not saying they can’t build a mosque, just wondering why THERE?

All the defenders of the Islamic faithful who want to protect their right to build in THAT spot never seem to ponder why it’s so sacred to THEM that they’d want to build there! I mean, hell man, look at the photos from your tour! Clearly it’s trying to send a message that the spot is an eyesore to everyone! What could possibly be worth this amount of aggravation and clearly ILL WILL towards them that would drive them to go forward with this? Unless they are practicing a little ”al–Taqiyya” here?
Did the Hidden Imam own a shoe shop there during the Crusades, selling moccasins to Native Americans? Is that why they have to build in THAT location?

How bout this – Ever had a neighbor that out of deference to you didn’t build a fence, or maybe he did build it to cover something so you wouldn’t have to see it? Or do something to his property that worked to your advantage because he valued your good will over his “rights”? Yeah man, before we go blaming ourselves for being the assholes here, I want to know, why aren’t they worried about being assholes over there? They KNOW we’re pissed, but there’s still no sign of them stopping, is there.

Your last point strips all the pretense off the Cordoba House promoters. IFFFF their intent was “building bridges” and promoting cultural understanding, they would have seen those purposes COULD NOT be realized in their project as planned.
That means they are lying. Islamist do that as a matter of policy.

Oh, no, man, it’s sooooo much easier to point fingers at us and assume we’re the intolerant horses rear end rednecks than it is to wonder what their motivations are. Everything they say goes one way, peace, understanding, brotherhood, but their actions speak so much louder. Since I’m already an intolerant sob, I might as well jump in with both feet.

See if you can come up with a ‘neighborly’ answer Pedro, as to why, knowing how we feel, they’d push this forward – go ahead…. explain their ‘good faith’ and ‘good will’ in this friendly, cultural understanding and brotherhood project they’re embarked on here with Cordoba house (yet another interesting choice for a name, not only were we supposed to be tolerant, we’re supposed to be dumber than dirt as well).

do we really know who the backers of this plan are? i confess i don’t. you act as if every muslim is a murderous scum, but i can’t believe that. you sound alot like that subsection you know, from the exact opposite side of the room.

No man, I don’t for a minute believe every Muslim wants to come kill us all, or convert us all by the sword, or dominate us, or…take your pick. I don’t even believe MOST of them want that. Sure, it’s the usual minority, same as you’d find here hiding in Montana, practicing White Supremacy. Not all Muslims, any more than some guy from the Blackhills Whitefolks Militia is all of us.

I’m fairly sure they’d like, on average, to be left alone to live their lives, I’m stock sure in many ways they want what I want – a good life, safety and comfort for the people they love, food on their table, a nice place to live, etc.
But for the guys on their side who are the equivalent of the Whitefolks Militia – I got two words – Fornicate off.
As for the funding what I get from fairly reliable sources, across the net, is the funding is suspect, it’s not the pennies of millions of Muslims world wide gathered together like my father claimed was done to be build Catholic cathedral’s like St. Patrick’s for peace and love and brotherhood (and I’ll stop there out of deference to the principle that the Church is a good organization at it’s heart).

And regardless of the funding – the heads of the project, as Rags pointed out, know that the whole peace and brotherhood outreach thing has already fallen flat. So for the moment, assume it’s really IS just us, being benighted and narrow minded about this, and that their intentions are pure, and good – if they have GOOD intentions out of respect for our foolishness and ignorance, and superstitious adherence to the false god we inherited from the Jews, don’t you think the honorable, gentlemanly thing to do is to seek an alternative location?

Clearly it’s made the natives very restless. They discovered now they shouldn’t touch the sacred feathers on the idol of the volcano god, wouldn’t it be far better to STOP touching them, then to grab them, stick them in their Keffiyeh’s and parade around to show us we’re just being foolish and superstitious?

“”The Muslims never asked for this [mosque], and even the angry Muslims do not want it. This is one of the few times when the two opposing sides are in agreement. Nevertheless, the dispute flared up. It made the front pages of newspapers and [featured on] the major television programs. Demonstrations were held in the streets, and large posters were plastered on New York buses, demanding that the construction of the mosque be prevented and reminding everyone of the 9/11 crime. This really is a strange battle!
“I can’t imagine that Muslims [actually] want a mosque at this particular location, because it will become an arena for the promoters of hatred, and a monument to those who committed the crime. Moreover, there are no practicing Muslims in the area who need a place to worship, because it is a commercial district. Is there anyone who is [really] eager [to build] this mosque?…
“Those pushing to build this mosque may be construction companies, architect firms, or political groups who want to exploit this issue. The individual who submitted the building application – I do not know whether he [really] wants [to build] a mosque that will promote reconciliation, or whether he is [just] an investor looking for quick profits. Because the idea of a mosque right next to a site of destruction is not at all an intelligent one. The last thing Muslims want today is to build a religious center that provokes others, or a symbolic mosque that people will visit as a [kind of] museum next to a cemetery.”

If built, the GZ Mosque will not only become a symbol for Muslims, it will become a symbol for Americans who are concerned about Islamism. Whenever there are tensions between the two peoples there will be demonstrations outside that mosque.

I can easily imagine 24/7 picketing with signs displaying the WTC in flames and the Mohammed cartoons.

We will see if President Obama and other apologists for the mosque come down so firmly on the side of American constitutional rights then.

And it will get worse for Knapp et al, at least until November. Since we have seen no evidence Obama is learning from his mistakes, and the only thing that might save him is having the Republicans to blame.

JFK was also unqualified. He did have some leadership experience, that PT boat that was splintered by a Jap destroyer, but that’s lean experience, similar to McCain’s.

JFK got pushed around in his first big meeting with the Soviet leader. He realized it, learned from the experience, and grew. He never grew quite enough to really be a good POTUS, but he did grow enough to stand up to the Soviets during the Cuban crisis.

Obama doesn’t learn. Oh, he will do a tactical retreat, but then next time around he makes a similar mistake.

JFK had 14 years in the House and the Senate before he became President in addition to four years as an officer in the Navy during WW II.

One might wish JFK had also governed a state, commanded an army or run a corporation, but compared to Obama’s bare two years in the Senate, much of which was spent campaigning, JFK was far, far more qualified than Obama. And yes, JFK still made rookie mistakes.

Even leaving aside all the Wright-Ayers etc. craziness, Obama was an astonishingly foolish choice by voters in 2008. It was a vote for the pied piper.

JFK…like LBJ…was a sick puppy. Like Bill “Boy” Clinton, they had deep, dark “issues” that were manifest in their conduct in office.
They each look like a model of statesmanship compared to the amazing pile of pathology that is Barack Hussain Obama. I don’t even blame him for being as sick as he is, but I DO blame him for putting himself in the office he holds. For the next two years, we ARE SOOOOO SCREWED.

Rush pointed out today that whenever a Muslim attacks in America, the Dems and the MSM rush to claim it is an isolated incident, and try to head off any backlash. Yet in this case, they are on the side pushing for a backlash.

This proposed Mosque is clearly an in your face effort. That’s why many American and Canadian Muslims are coming out against it. Interesting that the left is pushing it.

Well, hell, Elliot. I guess I’d let a “left-libertarian” define hissef or hersef. I don’t think you or I get to do that, frankly. I kind of allow as how there might be such a thing, as I know that libertarians are not a homogeneous phenomenon. Or did I miss something?
I take your points as to the collectivist urge to indulge in double-speak. I just don’t know that someone to the left of …say, McQ…can’t be a true libertarian (whatever the hell that is).
And I TOTALLY get that Erp is a fixed star of blazing dumb, constant, unalterable, and reliable.

Taking that to the logical extreme, the delusional psychotic who declares he is President Abraham Lincoln should be taken seriously.

I don’t think you or I get to do that, frankly.

We can refuse to play along with a clear misuse of the language.

I kind of allow as how there might be such a thing, as I know that libertarians are not a homogeneous phenomenon. Or did I miss something?

One of the reasons I generally don’t identify myself as a “libertarian” is because there are so many people who call themselves that who have such a variety of beliefs, who engage in such a wide range of political action. Frankly, I think the Libertarian Party is a joke, because they think they can vote themselves back their freedoms. They join the very same machine which is responsible for the suppression of individual rights. As long as they’re basically for individual rights (life, liberty, and property) and opposed to the use of aggressive force, I don’t begrudge them the self-description of “libertarian”. Of course, as they deviate from those principles, on things like immigration or drug prohibition, then their self-description seems less and less accurate, and they ought to be called on their failure to hold to the basic principles of liberty.
But once you cross over into the realm of socialist principles (like opposing wage labor or supporting government mandates like ObamaPelosiCare), you’re on the other side of the continental divide and there’s just no getting here from there.
It’s a bit like people who call themselves Christians, but who engage in hatred, stealing, lying, and other behavior which directly contradicts the tenets of the philosophy. OK, so they still believe the Jesus was the son of god and say prayers, so even if their actions belie their self-classification a bit, they’re still connected to the core principles.
But if they start believing in Norse gods or devoting themselves to Satanism, for example, at what point do you laugh at them when they tell you they’re Christians? How far do you let the charade proceed?

I just don’t know that someone to the left of …say, McQ…can’t be a true libertarian (whatever the hell that is).

Well there are some who would have a lot to say about that, though I don’t think we should revisit that here.
I think you’d help to bring some clarity to such discussions if you refrain from jamming all of human political thought and action into a one-dimensional line, based upon the French Revolution (none of which are relevant today).
If you’re going to be simplistic and measure politics on any one-dimensional spectrum, might I suggest you use the Individualist-Collectivist spectrum? At least that puts totalitarian regimes which murder tens of millions of people at the same freakin’ end of the spectrum, instead of pretending they are as different as black and white.

They join the very same machine which is responsible for the suppression of individual rights. As long as they’re basically for individual rights…

“They” in those two sentences refer to two different groups. The first is to LP members or voters. The second (and all following sentences) refer to self-described “libertarians” in general.
My apologies for the poor editing and sloppy use of pronouns.

Ragspierre used your name as the libertarian measuring point. I didn’t.
I haven’t read everything you’ve written, nor been privy to your conversations with others, so I honestly don’t know if you’ve ever used that label. That wasn’t my claim and is ultimately irrelevant to my point.
You could clear the air a bit here. Have you ever considered yourself to be a libertarian, whether or not you chose to use that label?
When I read this and this, my conclusion is that you’re espousing and defending libertarian principles. To me, the self-description of this website: “Free Markets, Free People” is strongly suggestive of libertarian ideals.
I understand that many individualists choose not to use the label libertarian, even if their values are, in fact, libertarian. A number of individualists I’ve read have expressly stated that they don’t wish to be associated with others who use that label (or labels like “Objectivist”), because too many have given the label a bad name. I understand that, because it is tiresome to deal with ignorant, simple-minded people who shut down their brain once they get a hold of a label with which to make boilerplate, guilt-by-association arguments.

Actually, the National Socialist Workers Party belongs on the same side of the line as the Communists and other socialist groups.

I fail to see why opposing illegal immigration is inherently anti-libertarian, unless you are specifically referring to archno-capitalism as the only form of libertarianism. In any form of libertarianism that includes a state, restricting immigration is reasonable, and in fact necessary.

I fail to see why opposing illegal immigration is inherently anti-libertarian…

What strikes me as anti-libertarian is the implementation of the new laws, and the nuts and bolts of the current political movements.
If you want to keep people from moving here to take advantage of taxpayers, then I think you’re misguided. Most immigrants who have not gone through the official process are hard-working, not welfare leeches. That’s a false stereotype, though I do recognize that many Big Government advocates do their best to persuade these immigrants to sign up as a way of boosting their numbers, whether they want to see welfare programs appear more needful of increases due to usage, or as a ploy to swell Democrat ranks at the polls.
The principled libertarian approach would be to remove those programs which allow anyone (native or immigrant) from taking advantage of the taxpayers in the first place. Punishing everyone who enters this country without permission from the “authorities” for what a few people do is decidedly a collectivist approach (harming a whole group to target a subset).
If you’re worried about crime, that’s another myth.
I look at it from the perspective of the individual. If someone comes here in search of the American Dream, who is willing to do honest work, then I don’t think they should be punished because other people who look like them are not honest workers.

…unless you are specifically referring to archno-capitalism as the only form of libertarianism.

No. But I do think that anarcho-capitalists are the subset of libertarians who adhere closest to the core principles of individualism, whether they want the label of libertarian or not.

From a general libertarian perspective, I see no problem whatsoever preventing illegal immigration. If you are going to have a nation with borders, it is reasonable to restrict who enters, and who stays.

From a more pragmatic perspective, the people who come in illegally tend to be leftists who vote for collectivist big government policies.

I know a bit first hand about illegal immigration. I grew up on the border, and have seen many illegals on my ranch and elsewhere. I also have known some illegals who entered legally then stayed illegally (in laws, in fact).

If you think illegals don’t add more to crime and to welfare usage more than legal residents, you are wrong. Most illegals are in fact hard working and and not criminals, but the percentage of welfare / crime types are in fact higher among them then the legal population.

From a general libertarian perspective, I see no problem whatsoever preventing illegal immigration. If you are going to have a nation with borders, it is reasonable to restrict who enters, and who stays.

If it is reasonable, then give me the reasons to have law enforcement harass, impede, punish, or deport a person who comes to this country in search of the American Dream, gets a job, works hard, and advances the economic situation of he and his family from one of simple laborers to entrepreneurs to well-educated professionals. And, none of those reasons should have anything to do with people who are not this immigrant and his family doing bad things, because he and his family are not those people.

From a more pragmatic perspective, the people who come in illegally tend to be leftists who vote for collectivist big government policies.

That is a flaw of US politics—putting moral questions at the mercy of the mob. For many long decades before that immigrant walked over the border or got off a plane, there has been collectivist big government programs in America. Income taxes, Social Security, and the Great Society have been in place for between 40 and 90+ years.
So your answer to this is to punish millions of people because you calculate that most of them will make it more difficult to elect wimpy Republicans who trade away your children’s futures through compromise, ineptitude, and outright complicity? Romney (Mass health care), McCain (maverick horsesh**), Bush (deficits, medicare drug program), Dole (ADA), Schwarzenegger (virtual Democrat), Guliani (same) typify the GOP, not Ron Paul or Phil Gramm. You’re really wanting to interfere with the lives of innocents to put more of those nitwits in office?
As the opponents to the socialist Democrats, I really want to like the Republicans, but every time they’ve been given power, they have failed to do much of anything to protect my rights or to protect the economic future of this country.

I know a bit first hand about illegal immigration. I grew up on the border, …

My dad was born on the border and I grew up in San Antonio, which is majority Hispanic. I’ve seen plenty of people from Mexico or of Mexican ancestry, from migrant workers I worked with in a summer job to wealthy, established families. So long as they were honest, peaceable, and took care of themselves, I had no problem with them being here. (Which is funny, because a few generations back, it was my ancestors who were the immigrants, who were not trusted by the native citizens…so much so that they went to war over it.)

and have seen many illegals on my ranch and elsewhere.

If someone, native or immigrant, is on your ranch, then you have every right to defend your property. I prefer open borders, so nobody feels the need to sneak across your acreage to evade authorities. They can drive or fly to where they’re going, like anyone else.

If you think illegals don’t add more to crime and to welfare usage more than legal residents, you are wrong. Most illegals are in fact hard working and and not criminals, but the percentage of welfare / crime types are in fact higher among them then the legal population.

That is not a fact. See this for a start. I keep reading how border towns actually have lower crime rates. Sure, there is drug violence, which is generally internecine, but the libertarian answer to that is to end drug prohibition to remove the vast majority of incentives to commit violence. (Beer distributors don’t shoot it out with each other.)
If you have some statistics concerning the percentage of welfare users, put up a link. I’ll try to find one which makes the opposite case, when I get time.
But again, the problem there is an American problem: allowing people (immigrant or native) to suck off the teat. Phase out those programs.

The idea that we should let anyone into the US who wants to come here is simply insane. It is a recipe to invite millions from all over, mostly from failed third world countries to the US.

US liberty is rooted in culture. Immigration must be restricted to allow for assimilation. Your libertarian idealism is self defeating. If we get the immigration system you want, our destruction as a nation of limited government and liberty will be assured.

I already read your post on crime rates in border states. It’s BS. It discusses the change in crime in border areas, and notes that crime is down. But is illegal immigration up or down? And what other factors are at play? The simple fact is that Mexico has higher crime rates than the US, and hispanics in the US have higher crime rates than non-hispanic whites. Crime rates among illegals is hard to calculate since immigration status is not usually factored in the data, but my personal experience (and various other data) indicates that illegal crime rates are higher than those of legal immigrant hispanics.

In the town where I grew up, we had three murders of residents (out of a population of about 1,400). Homicide there was very rare, but the people who murdered the three were illegals. Most other homicides are between illegals. We also had the case of a man who was killed and partially eaten by dogs belonging to a legal Mexican resident who was involved in smuggling. And I know two people who had their trucks stolen by illegals. We also have biker types and meth types, but the theft and violent crime usually involves illegals.

The idea that we should let anyone into the US who wants to come here is simply insane.

Who is “we”? Don’t fall for the Ambiguous Collective Fallacy. I don’t have the personal authority to decide whether someone should be allowed to move to New York or San Francisco to make a living. I’m nowhere near those places, so it makes no sense that just because I was born in the US and lived here most of my life that somehow I have the right to decide whether some outsider can cross a border thousands of miles from me.
For me, this sort of thing always boils down to two questions. Who decides? Why do they get to decide?

It is a recipe to invite millions from all over, mostly from failed third world countries to the US.

Which is the history of this great country. It’s the story of the American Dream, told millions of times over. When you don’t have big government programs for people to exploit, then moving here means working. I have no problem with millions of people leaving crappy places to come work here. Not that it would matter if I didn’t like it, mind you.

US liberty is rooted in culture. Immigration must be restricted to allow for assimilation.

I regret that US culture today seems to have just about lost hold of the roots of liberty. This country is being overwhelmed by entitlements, government job ratio, nanny control, and bed-wetting fear of terrorism, environmental catastrophe, drug-like MP3 downloads, etc.. People who come here and work their asses off to fulfill their dream tend to have a better appreciation for freedom, independence, and personal responsibility.
I understand the issue of assimilation and the concern that a “flood” of people would clog the streets with refugees sleeping on the sidewalks and whatnot. I kind of doubt that even a total open-door policy implemented immediately would be that big a deal. If people wanted to have a gradual easing of restrictions to avoid such an influx, I suppose that would be better than the status quo. But again, that’s not really for me to decide and I’m not going to bow and scrape to get the presumed “authorities” (and wannabes) to be less hostile to good people.

Your libertarian idealism is self defeating. If we get the immigration system you want, our destruction as a nation of limited government and liberty will be assured.

The thing about a free society is that taking half measures often does lead to self-destructive results. The very idea of “a nation of limited government and liberty” was lost long before we were born, and has been rotting in the ground for some time now. (Personally, I called time of death when they passed TARP.)
As far as crime rates and welfare usage, I have not seen any convincing data. I’ve seen anecdotal incidents. Laura Ingraham loves to tell the story of someone drove drunk and killed some people, after officials failed to deport him. But that’s a stupid argument, because plenty of natives drive around sloshed and kill people and plenty of immigrants don’t drink and drive. Such examples are meant to push emotional buttons.
The thing to remember is that the majority of immigrants who work hard and respect the rights of others are not the people who commit crimes or take welfare. They are different people and it’s not right to punish one because of the other.

In a recent gallup poll, the media did not inspire great confidence.http://www.gallup.com/poll/142133/confidence-newspapers-news-remains-rarity.aspx
As for Obama’s thin resumé, if I were head of a human resources office searching for a president of a $100M company and I scheduled Obama for an interview, the CEO would have grounds to fire me. What we see in the Obama administration is a complete lack of leadership and zero executive experience.
So far, no Obama supporter has been able to answer my pre-election question:
Why is Barack Hussein Obama the one person in the United States who should be elected President?

Well frankly Arch, and I hate to say it, because he was the only African-American candidate running, and I guess middle America wanted to finally convince itself (and the ever critical racist left) they weren’t a bunch of racist sons-of-bitches. That’s a lousy reason of course, but it’s the only one that makes sense assuming that they didn’t actually believe he’d stop global warming, cause the oceans to recede and give us all moon ponies and change, forever and ever, Amen.